feat(execute): Mainnet marked tests

[marioevz]

🗒️ Description

Mark a subset of prague tests as mainnet-sanity tests.

The idea behind this PR is to:

• Mark at least one test per EIP to run in mainnet after the fork activation in order to sign-off the fork.
• The selected tests must be extremely simple and use a minimal amount of gas and preferably no Eth value.
• The tests would be executed using uv run execute remote --fork=Prague -m mainnet ....
• The tests can be displayed using uv run fill --fork=Prague -m mainnet --collect-only for reference.

🔗 Related Issues

✅ Checklist

• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes.
• All: Considered squashing commits to improve commit history.
• All: Added an entry to CHANGELOG.md.
• All: Considered updating the online docs in the ./docs/ directory.
• Tests: All converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests have been added to converted-ethereum-tests.txt.
• Tests: A PR with removal of converted JSON/YML tests from ethereum/tests have been opened.
• Tests: Included the type and version of evm t8n tool used to locally execute test cases: e.g., ref with commit hash or geth 1.13.1-stable-3f40e65.
• Tests: Ran mkdocs serve locally and verified the auto-generated docs for new tests in the Test Case Reference are correctly formatted.

[spencer-tb]

Would it be better to add the mainnet marks on a per test case basis?

      pytest.param(
            Spec.G1ADD,
            Spec.G1 + Spec.INF_G1,
            Spec.G1,
            None,
            id="G1ADD",
            marks=[pytest.mark.mainnet]
        ),

[danceratopz]

@marioevz I removed the EIP spec version checker from fill's and execute's pytest*.ini files to stop these tests causing noise for ethPandaOps whilst using this branch. I am addressing this change properly in another PR.

[danceratopz]

@marioevz I removed the EIP spec version checker from fill's and execute's pytest*.ini files to stop these tests causing noise for ethPandaOps whilst using this branch. I am addressing this change properly in another PR.

WIP -> #1537

[spencer-tb]

Would it be better to add the mainnet marks on a per test case basis?

      pytest.param(
            Spec.G1ADD,
            Spec.G1 + Spec.INF_G1,
            Spec.G1,
            None,
            id="G1ADD",
            marks=[pytest.mark.mainnet]
        ),

I'm still wondering if the above is worthwhile. Alternatively we could make execute/fill ignore the mainnet marker by default?

[marioevz]

Would it be better to add the mainnet marks on a per test case basis?

      pytest.param(
            Spec.G1ADD,
            Spec.G1 + Spec.INF_G1,
            Spec.G1,
            None,
            id="G1ADD",
            marks=[pytest.mark.mainnet]
        ),

I'm still wondering if the above is worthwhile. Alternatively we could make execute/fill ignore the mainnet marker by default?

The only thing I like from keeping them separate is that we can focus on optimizing these tests for gas in order for them to not consume a lot of real Eth when executed. E.g. let's say we mark a test as a mainnet test and afterwards, in a different PR, we inadvertently modify the test to cover a different case and it ends up using much more gas. It's unlikely but I like the separation.

We could indeed make it so that fill does not go through these tests, but execute I still see the value.

[spencer-tb]

LGTM! Sounds good!